Table 4

Synthesis of results for studies that estimate the correlation between changes in radiographic progression and changes in HAQ score during follow-up (type D comparison)

CitationVariables correlatedType of statistical analysisNo of patients for correlation % baseline)Correlation scorep ValueAdjustments for confounders
Univariate analysis
Scott 200012LarsenSpearman's correlation33 (100%)0.37 (5 years)0.05*No
Gordon 200144§LarsenSpearman's correlation78 (27%)0.35 (10 years)0.007*No
Plant 200540§Modified LarsenSpearman's correlation366 (86.9%)0.2 (5 years)Not statedYes
Multivariate analysis
Clarke 200143§LarsenBayesian hierarchical model130 (100%)Not relevantSig*Yes
Rupp 200639§Sharp/vdH – physical SF-36Multiple linear regression analysis258 (84.0%)Not relevant>0.05No
Gonzalez-Alvaro 200842§Modified Larsen (Scott)Bivariate analysis465 (58.9%)Not relevant<0.001*No
van der Heijde 200875§Sharp/vdHGeneralised mixed linear model622 (90.7%)Not relevant0.001*Yes
  • In the column named ‘variables correlated’ the measure of damage is always reported while the measure of disability is reported only when different from HAQ (in italics). In the column named ‘correlation score’ the year in brackets represents the end of follow-up.

  • * Statistically significant correlation at a p<0.05 or when the authors stated that it was significant (Sig) but did not provide a p value

  • In this study only patients that provided radiographic scores were included and it is not clear whether some patients were lost to follow-up;

  • <1 year disease duration;

  • § >6 years disease duration;

  • see table 2 for details on disease duration.

  • HAQ, health assessment questionnaire; SF-36, short-form 36; vdH, van der Heide.